THOSE who say Jessica Rey, the swimsuit retailer and former television actress (discussed here and here), is a champion of female modesty should get a load of this photo of Rey and her worshipful, devirilized husband. Here Rey takes part in the faddish, narcissistic eroticizing of the womb which first began with celebrities but is now more widespread as photographers capture pregnant women in various navel-gazing poses, a trend that could only take place in a culture that sentimentalizes and trivializes motherhood. No woman who appears like this is an authority on modesty. [Many readers below disagree.]

Don’t miss Kidist P. Asrat’s post on Rey at Reclaiming Beauty.

— Comments —

Perry H. writes:

I fail to see how this photo is immodest or eroticizing. A fad? Yes. Immodest? Not at all. I wouldn’t call it narcissistic either, though I am of a younger generation who may not be as spiritually discerning as older Christians may be. And is her husband really in a worshipful pose?

As for Rey not being a “champion of modesty,” has she ever made this claim for herself? Sure, she may not be as modest as we would like her to be, I for one find it refreshing that a dialogue on modesty has been started. Why must we tear her down? I’m sure too many on the Left are already doing this.

Please correct me if I am truly overlooking anything.

Laura writes:

Immodest? She looks like she is wearing underwear or clothes for bed. Very tight clothes on a pregnant woman are immodest because they are similar to nakedness in revealing all the contours of the body. A woman’s naked body should be for her husband alone. Modesty is about protecting intimacy, privacy, and mystery, not simply about sex. (Insane people are the most immodest of all. They have no sense of self, no interior life, no restraint.) If there are not some things we reveal only to those with whom we are most intimate, those whom we love and to whom we also disclose our deepest thoughts, then we have no self to give to them. We have no privacy and no depth. “Indiscretion signifies a lack of distinction,” said Rudolf Allers, in his book Sex Psychology. Privacy is exclusive.

Yes, her husband is worshipping her and her belly. He does not look at the camera. He is in the background, his ostentatious crucifix obscured by his wife’s overdeveloped biceps. [Actually, this is not right, because her left arm is slight, so I take that back. See discussion below.]

Paul T. writes:

Kidist’s post at Reclaiming Beauty seems to expend undue energy in attacking Rey’s wardrobe, hair, etc. [Laura writes: But that is the subject of Rey’s talk!! Rey herself believes that a woman’s appearance is of utmost importance! Kidist is taking Rey seriously.] Maybe Rey could have made different sartorial choices, but frankly, she still looks pretty good. [She is certainly pretty.] Your own initial post on Rey didn’t take issue with her appearance. Anyway, having previously speculated about Rey’s ‘insincerity’, Kidist now goes on to speculate that Rey’s aggressive promotion of her swimsuit line may reflect heightened testosterone levels owing to too many workouts at the gym. Kidist even helpfully includes a diagram showing the relationship between testosterone and aggression — like something out of an old middle-school educational filmstrip. The only coherent thread in all this is that Kidist really, really dislikes Jessica Rey. If I were the speculative kind, which I am not, I might consider whether the word ‘jealousy’ applies. [But Kidist has rightly pointed out Rey’s hefty muscles, which conflict with her femininity message. The other points about testosterone are related to that.]

As for the photo, as mentioned in my earlier post, I’m not crazy about it, but not because it shows Rey with a big belly. The obvious problem is its ostentatious sentimentality — it seems to say,”Look at how moved I and my sensitive, adoring husband are by my pregnancy.” Not a crime, but a small offense against good taste. Your own objections to the photo strike me as similar. Unfortunately, Kidist hasn’t been as specific about what makes it so offensive to her, leaving me wondering whether her canon of modesty requires a complete ban on all photographs of pregnant women. (And if so, why?) [Please see above.] She does take another stab at the insincere-mercenary-Asian angle (the photo appears to be part of “a publicity blitzkrieg, so that people will know her swimwear line, and start buying”); and there is a final ungracious remark about Rey’s roles “in unknown, forgettable TV shows,” is if that had to do with anything.

Yes, avoiding immodesty is important, but so is avoiding presumptuousness and uncharitableness. I do think Kidist should remove the beam from her own eye before swatting at the speck behind Rey’s allegedly ugly glasses.

Laura writes:

Kidist’s post is not about herself. If it were, she could tell us about her own faults. It is about Rey, a public figure who is a perfectly legitimate subject for analysis. You may disagree with Kidist, but it is not necessary for her to prove her own flawlessness to criticize Rey, and she has given reasons for all her remarks.

Nicholas writes:

What is “devirilized” about Rey’s husband? I also don’t understand how her biceps are “overdeveloped.” She looks like a twig.

 Laura writes:

Her overdeveloped biceps are much more obvious in the video in the previous post, but I see it in her right arm here. You’re right, her left arm looks like a twig.

As for her husband, he is soft and motherly.

Natassia writes:

I generally agree with everything you post, but this latest on Rey just seems overdone. What she is wearing is quite typical of what I see pregnant women wearing all the time, especially in the summer. Not that that means it is modest, but it certainly isn’t underwear. [Laura writes: This is a public portrait. Regardless of what pregnant women wear casually in hot weather, which is another issue, this is the Reys’ idea of a family portrait, which I find embarrassingly indiscreet. If this private moment of intimacy is on full display, I ask you to tell me what intimacy is. Is it just nakedness? When people publicly display their most intimate moments, they have no intimate moments. They are turned inside out.] 

I think Rey is taking steps in the right direction. Not everyone is going to be as far along on the modesty journey as others (like Kidist) but at least she is on the same road.

[It’s not just that Rey is not far enough along, it’s that she contradicts her message.]

If we beat up on everyone who just isn’t quite wear we want them to be (pun intended), it can be very discouraging for those of us, like myself, who continually struggle with walking down the straight and narrow with very little support from our friends, family, and even our churches (!). Sometimes I feel like a failure when I read scathing criticisms like what Kidist has written. [Then perhaps Kidist should write about how great people look in bathrobes so as not to encourage feelings of imperfection. By the way, I don’t always fulfill the standards I admire by any means, but that doesn’t make me wish there were no elevated standards and it doesn’t make me depressed. There’s always tomorrow to try again. The most important thing is what I strive for, what I admire.]

I just can’t be perfect enough…so why even worry about it? Even my latest attempts at a modesty that was never taught by my mother (who was and still is a very immodest woman) would probably earn words of acid from Kidist. We’ll get there–young ladies like Rey and myself. Just give us some time. We have been raised in an society where looking “hot” is all that matters. The fact that Rey is promoting femininity and prettiness and modesty is a BIG deal for women of my generation.

Laura writes:

As I said in my original post, I liked Rey’s speech. I thought it was witty and charming. She made some very important points. I liked it so much that I wish Rey conformed more to the ideals she promotes.

Roger G. writes:

I admit this is a side point. Pardon me if it is too trivial, or even irrelevant. But Kidist P. Asrat says:

“Also notice the ugly, pumped up upper arm muscles. This is a sign of prolonged ‘working out.’ What about the soft arms which are so much more feminine?”

I say hell no. Pump up those arms and legs. Hooray for strength, health, all that stuff. Definition is beautiful. I’ll bet Laura herself, aside from whatever workout routine she may have, gets plenty of exercise from everything she has to do at home. The housewives I know personally certainly do.

Laura writes:

Housework doesn’t create that kind of studied definition, which takes hours and hours away from everyday chores to achieve. I find it quite ugly for women to have pumped-up arms, which make them look (and feel) aggressive, but I can understand that’s partly a matter of taste. What I do know is that women who spend many hours on their muscles (especially in gyms) are uniformly insipid and shallow. Sorry, it’s just true. It’s not that they are stupid, it’s just that there’s no there there. Try to converse with such women and there’s no traction. The larger the biceps, the smaller the mind. I realize Jessica is quite smart, but I imagine at this point she is probably on automatic pilot, intellectually speaking.

Paul T. writes:

I am not suggesting that Kidist must prove her own flawlessness to criticize Rey, only that the rambling, catty quality of her attacks on Rey weakens her persuasiveness and credibility. Taken together, her case is (a) Rey, though American-born, is an Asian invader of our culture (b) she is running a for-profit enterprise, so her arguments on behalf of modesty are tainted with insincerity (c) her swimsuits are overpriced in comparison with (Third-World-sweatshop-supplied) Wal-Mart’s — sorry, but Kidist raised Wal-Mart a second time, so it’s fair to mention it again (d) while some find her swimsuits beautiful, she herself dresses like a frump (d) her arms are too pumped-up from exercise, suggesting raised testosterone levels which probably make her still more aggressive in business (e) clearly, she goes to the gym, which takes away time from the performance of her family responsibilities, (f) she espouses [sic] ‘puritanical’ Catholicism rather than a sincere regard for beauty, in fact she is out to “stifle beauty in our culture” (!) and (f) as an actress she never rose above parts in forgettable TV shows. As you say, Kidist “gives reasons,” indeed she does, reasons aplenty — but the reasons are mostly piffling stuff and their scattershot, cobbled-together quality, taken all together, look more like attempts to justify a gut-level animosity than anything else. (Some might say that, at worst, many women do tend to argue that way).

By the way, I don’t know that anyone but Kidist has ever linked “Catholic” and “Puritanical.”  It reminds me of the character in Philip Roth’s short story, “The Conversion of the Jews,” of whom Roth wrote: “Benny used the term “Catholic” in the broadest sense — to include the Protestants.” Ah well, Catholics, Protestants – they’re all white!

 Laura writes:

You have made a case for your objections. Let’s hope that the message Jessica conveyed in her speech, which I linked to earlier, gets wider attention. It is not possible in a celebrity, image-saturated culture to promote modesty modestly (as in, self-effacingly).

Roger G. responds:

Previously we’ve discussed tandem canoeing and cycling.  Where a woman enthusiastically pursues such activities with her husband, her muscles are not going to say, “We’ll ignore all this stress you’re subjecting us to, and stay soft and flabby.”

I repeat – for either sex, the stronger and fitter, the better.

Laura writes:

Then you should feel very at home in modern-day Sparta, as many people agree.

Roger adds:

“The larger the biceps, the smaller the mind.”

I bench 305 lbs.! Thank you so much!!

Laura writes:

I rest my case. : – )

Roger writes:

A woman can achieve Rey’s degree of definition in 30 minutes a day. I don’t think 30 minutes a day, or even an hour, is excessive.

Laura writes:

Nor do I. I still think it’s an unappealing look, though I think overall Rey is very attractive.

Natassia writes:

This is a fad I never felt comfortable with although I could never find the words to express why I felt that way.

My sisters have professional implied nude and silhouette photos taken of themselves while pregnant and post them online for friends and family.

I always felt weird about my husband and other men seeing them. Rey’s photo is tame in comparison. However, considering how our society mutilates and murders millions of babies in the womb, I just can’t get upset about couples taking photos to celebrate the new life they have brought into the world together…especially married, heterosexual, openly Christian couples. They provide a stark and beautiful contrast to the freak show photos of pregnant transgendered “men” and lesbian couples that are all over the place. No matter how hard the perverts try, they just can’t duplicate what Rey has.

 Laura writes:

That is true, but I find erotic photos of pregnant women objectionable no matter how many freaks there are.

An anonymous female reader writes:

I found Kidist’s post extremely off-putting–and guilty of the unnecessary aggressiveness of which she accuses Jessica Rey. Why pick apart every aspect of this woman’s appearance in such a cruel, rude way? It really smacks of a personal animosity, as a previous commenter suggested. Also, some women are more naturally muscular. I am stocky, have large leg muscles, and perpetually look like I work out often when I don’t. I don’t have high testosterone levels, nor am I aggressive. When I do (rarely) find the time to exercise, I build muscle exceedingly quickly. It doesn’t take hours of time in the gym, just a quick 20-minute workout now and again. I still consider myself extremely feminine. Why does Kidist presume to know how Rey got her muscles and insult her about it? I find her post arrogant and demeaning, for no good reason that I can see, and fairly incoherent.

 Laura writes:

You may build muscle quickly, and well-developed muscles in and of themselves are a good thing, but what Kidist is critiquing in Rey’s arms is something that is noticeable in many women celebrities. Many of them have pumped-up arms. The reason for Kidist picking apart Rey’s appearance is that this is Rey’s business, this is what Rey herself has said is important. So while you may totally reject Kidist’s standards, I think it is fair for her to analyze what Rey considers the ideal to be.

Shefali writes:

Pre-natal photography is now a fad on par with extravagant weddings and many Asian women, tending to a lean structure with the merest strength training, acquire muscles that wouldn’t develop so quick on other races.

If we are to consider Jessica a mediocre celeb/Asian immigrant who is not good enough for her home country we must know Jessica’s background – she does have an MBA and a Bachelor of Science in Business. She has very cleverly identified a real niche and created a business. She has managed to find a man of her faith, one who has nothing to do with celebrity and the dysfunctions that come with it, a boring professor. She did not have sexual relations with him until marriage, she is a mother to two children before she is 30.

Kidist’s arguments are not a critique of her business practices, talent or designs.

The anonymous female reader continues:

Ostentatious biceps?! Her arms look like sticks! [Laura writes: Kidist’s point about her arms was made in reference to her appearance in the video, not this photo. As I said they are not very visible in this photo, except on the right.] ] My arms are twice that size easily, and again, I put no effort into it. And her shirt, while tight, is a tank top that matches her husband’s shirt. I understand that everyone has different standards of modesty, but I simply don’t understand the accusation that this is like “underwear.” At the very least, it’s arguable. They are wearing matching outfits, and I would say that I barely notice her body–what I notice are the stark black and white hues of the photograph, the crucifix, and the baby. He is looking at her belly and they are both “celebrating” the pregnancy, as was likely very planned and posed by a photographer (probably not chosen by them). I understand that perhaps it’s just a difference of opinion, but to say that they are worshipping the pregnant belly is just too much. At most it seems like they are both speaking to or smiling at the unborn child. I see it as symbolic of celebrating the life that’s about to come.

Diana J. writes:

What exactly is the jab about Catholicism at the end of Kidist’s post? Perhaps I’m not following the argument, but is she saying that religion is not an appropriate alternative? How is embracing one’s commitment to God not reclaiming beauty? I can think of no better way.

Also, I thought the outfit [she wore in the video] was cute. [Laura writes: I thought it was cute also.] And to connect Rey’s biceps to higher testosterone and thus her advanced career was an almost laughable stretch. Many working women are less in shape because they rely on fast food and eating out in between meetings. I felt, as it seems others also did, that her writing was immature and her insults rather “ugly” towards Rey, to be honest. It’s one thing to disagree, but the snide remarks almost make it seem like Kidist has some sort of personal vendetta against Rey.

Karl D. writes:

I think that particular physical “look” that Rey has comes not from the gym but from Yoga. A wildly popular thing with woman on the East and West coast these days. My own landlady is a Yoga nut. Personally I don’t like the physical results as it makes most women look too sinewy and gristle-y in appearance. One need only look at current photos of Madonna to see what I am talking about.

As to the pregnancy photos? I have always found them to be overly self-indulgent and downright corny. There is a great photo of my mother and father when my mother was about eight months pregnant with me in 1967. He is standing next to her wearing a blue blazer and tie and she is dressed up in a pink and white maternity ensemble with her hair up. They are both smiling broadly and happily in anticipation of my birth. A typical photo of an expecting couple of the time. The difference however was the photo happened to be taken while they were expecting, not BECAUSE they were expecting. Therein lies the difference. And even if the photo was taken intentionally, why does there have to be an absence of clothing or some overly sentimental pose? Parents these days seem over indulgent when it comes to their children. Photos start in the womb to documenting every waking breath on video and photo to the point of absurdity.

Laura writes:

I find these photos, which have been discussed here before, to be truly lacking in the spirit of motherhood and marriage. The glistening arms of the mother, the sensual belly, the father embracing her as if in the most private of moments — this is infantile narcissism, not maternal expectation. They are part of the general lack of awareness of adults that parenthood involves a human being. Truthfully, I don’t think many people want this kind of photo of their mothers in the family archives. What most people love to see  is photos that show that in the moments before they came into the world their parents loved each other. How wonderful these photos are because they demonstrate that a son or daughter is the product of something deeply personal, perhaps that one’s parents didn’t even need you, so solid was their love for each other. Only a narcissist looks at his parents’ photo, the mother in a reasonably discreet maternity dress with the father’s arm around her, both smiling and happy, and says, “Gee, why weren’t they looking at me in the womb? Why weren’t they adoring me?“

And I wager that many of the women who get such photos are not at all ready for the challenges of motherhood, which requires immense humility, and thus these photos will be especially embarrassing later on.

I am very glad my mother never posed like this, and it would never in a million years have occurred to her. But then it wasn’t a trend then. Now you may argue that Rey is simply participating in a contemporary fad, but that’s not a good defense because Rey herself is a champion of modesty and supposedly resists fads. What is her basic point about modesty? Her point is that the woman’s body, if revealed thoughtlessly and promiscuously, loses its spiritual meaning and its association with intimacy.

Laura from Texas writes:

Laura writes:

Thank you. I have a million things I would like to write about in the areas you mention. Blogging is very demanding.

Kidist’s forté is visual art and architecture, but I think she has worthwhile insights on fashion and culture. There are many good posts in the archives at Camera Lucida on these subjects. (There seems to be some glitch with the photos there at the moment.)

Kidist lives in Toronto and one of her major concerns is the transformation of Canada by Asian immigrants.

By the way, try to put leeks in that broth.

Paul T. writes:

I’m sorry if Laura from Texas thought I believe that ‘all women argue as ineffectively as Kidist does;” in fact I don’t even think that Kidist typically argues as weakly as I think she does on the subject of Jessica Rey. Often she argues superbly. I meant only that there is a long-standing perception that when women don’t argue well, it’s often because they are less interested in sorting out questions logically according to abstract principles, than in rationalizing their emotional reactions with whatever comes to hand. I assume that there is probably some basis for this perception, as with most folk beliefs; but just how fair it is, I really couldn’t say; and it goes without saying that men can argue very poorly too when passionate emotions get the better of them.

 Vicki writes:

I have truly enjoyed all that you have written. I have never felt the need to add to the commentary. However, the discussion on Jessica Rey has turned foul and uncharitable. I respect that all have differing opinions on the topics being discussed, but keep in mind that some of what has been written will be sending some of us to the confessional.

Pregnancy photos, just like anything in this world, can be done well or poorly. As a prolife Catholic mother, pregnant with our seventh child, I can appreciate the beauty of one done well. When I was pregnant with #5, I had a set done with the other children. I did so because I loved being pregnant (even with the suffering that accompanies pregnancy.) I love that God chose me to carry this little one, and that my sweet children, ages 6 and under, were equally in love with the baby. All of my children have been cesarean sections, and at the time of our photo shoot, I had no idea if I’d be able to have more babies because of the surgeries. Looking at the photo my preborn baby and her siblings makes me smile just as does the photos of them holding her in her first days after being born. I do not know what God has planned for us, and I am ever-thankful to Him for blessing us with these children and healthy recoveries. Being able to carry a child again is a great gift, one that cannot begin to be accurately captured in even the best picture, but I know that when I am old and gray, I will be so happy to recall the joy of these crazy happy days through our photographs.

Laura writes:

I am not objecting to all prenatal portraits. I am objecting to a certain kind of portrait. Some women even have photos taken of themselves naked. [These photos have been discussed here before. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time at the moment to look up the link.] I strongly disagree with your point that it is foul and un-Christian to point out the lack of modesty in these photos.

Mary writes:

I blame Facebook for the popularity of the maternity photo shoot – I’m guessing most of these photos end up posted. But I also think having babies later in life, along with the sort of micro-planning of small families that goes on these days (we’ll have 2 kids, hopefully a boy and a girl, 3 years apart, etc.), has contributed greatly to the treatment of maternity and babies in an overly precious way.

I blame Michelle Obama for the arms. Kidding. But, boy, were my arms toned when I had babies and little kids to lift and carry and baby car seats to hoist around all day. I miss those arms!

On another note, every once in a while I re-read Laura Woods’ message of Greeting in her “about” section.  It’s simply wonderful. For those who have never read it:

People say the domestic life is narrow and stultifying, a prison for the intellect. Feminists have long made this claim.

I guess you could say it’s true, but only if you think human history is boring, the laws of nature are boring, love is boring, birth is boring, children are boring, personality is boring, the mind is boring, morality is boring, death is boring, male and female are boring, sex is boring, illness is boring, kisses are boring, prayers are boring, philosophy is boring, poetry is boring, God is boring, the seasons are boring, gravity is boring, song is boring, trees are boring, sunlight is boring, the stars are boring, snow is boring, dew is boring. If all this is true, the home is not what it appears: a fount of ideas and truths, a university and a museum, a laboratory for the curious, a gallery of all that is human. If the home is boring, life itself is a desert.

Thank you, Thinking Housewife.

Laura writes:

You are welcome. : – )

Claire Stevens writes:

I read with interest the comments from others concerning Kidist’s post on Jessica Rey, then I went and read Kidist’s post. From the comments on your site I was expecting a much harsher critique by Kidist than what I found. What struck me most about Jessica’s appearance in the video, and what Kidist addresses in her commentary, is how unfeminine Jessica appears to be. To me, Jessica Rey looks like an Asian version of Jenna Lyons, the lesbian president and creative director of J.Crew. Perhaps Jessica did that on purpose? Saying you’re modest and fashionable while looking similar to one of the supposedly most influential women in fashion seems pretty business savvy to me.

Kidist also mentions the swimsuits being something you could easily buy at Sears or Wal-Mart. I can’t speak for either of those stores but I can attest to seeing very similar styles at Target for considerably less so I do wonder what exactly Jessica is adding to the market, other than more expensive versions of items already available for purchase. Her whole “modesty” schtick seems to be more of a marketing ploy rather than a true interest in modesty and reclaiming beauty.

I also agree with both you and Kidist that the pregnancy photo is immodest and inappropriate. It’s an interesting photographic capture of her and her husband’s solipsistic behavior, the way that they ogle the pregnant belly as if to say, “Look at what WE did! This is OUR special moment!” It’s most definitely not about the baby. I feel sorry for their children who were conceived, in all likelihood, for the benefit of the parents. These children grow up not viewing themselves as complete souls on their own because their whole purpose in life is to complete the parents’ empty souls. At least, that’s what pictures like this say to me. It brings to mind the modern wedding, its expense and emphasis on destroying tradtion in favor of adding your “personal” touch because when you’re a solipsist the world emmanates from you, you don’t inhabit a world separate from yourself. It’s flawed beliefs like this that give credence to a “whatever works for you” or “whatever you need Christ to be” kind of Christianity. And in the case of Jessica Rey, it gives rise to a conveniently commercial modesty that profits.